When news is too expensive, democracy pays the price
Journalism has long been considered a public good, an essential component of democracy that informs the public, holds powers accountable and fosters discussion. In an era where misinformation is rampant, restricting access to credible news sources by hiding them behind a paywall restricts the general public from receiving credible information. Big media corporations like The New York Times and The Washington Post generate substantial revenue, yet they still hide essential reporting behind a paywall. This isn't about sustaining journalism; it's about profit maximization.
The worst part is that the people who lose out the most are those who rely on accurate news but can't afford to pay for a monthly subscription. For people who can barely make ends meet, paying for news is just another expense they can't afford. These individuals are often the most in need of quality information—whether it's about local policies, healthcare or global issues that affect their lives— paywalls make this access out of reach.
Journalism is a struggling industry. Print newspapers have indeed suffered and online advertising revenue alone isn't enough to sustain quality reporting. Small, independent and local news outlets often genuinely need subscriptions to survive. However, the same cannot be said for massive media corporations with multiple revenue streams like advertisements and outside funding. These companies have the financial means to provide free access to critical news, but instead, they prioritize boosting profits. Blocking access to crucial information directly undermines the core mission of journalism—to serve the public.
Beyond financial concerns, paywalls directly shape how people consume information. When reputable news sources are inaccessible, people turn to whatever is free—which often means biased blogs, social media hot takes and outright misinformation. This creates an almost dystopian regulation on who can view credible news sources and who can't; fact-based reporting becomes a privilege for those who can afford it, while misleading or false narratives become the default for those who can't. If these major outlets truly cared about fighting misinformation, they wouldn't be charging people for access to the truth.
During the pandemic, many publications temporarily removed paywalls for pandemic-related news because they knew withholding news would be irresponsible. But if free access is necessary during a crisis, why isn't it necessary every day? Democracy doesn't take breaks, neither should access to journalism. Jacob Bromell (’27) recognizes the importance of both accessibility and financial sustainability.
“News should never be censored and it shouldn’t cost anything to stay informed. But, at the same time, they are businesses and they have to stay open and pay their writers,” Bromell said. “A good solution would be an outlet that has a free section for all of the important [news] headlines and then all the other sections–like opinion, A&E, and more niche things– would be behind a paywall.”
So what's the alternative? Some news outlets allow a few free articles per month, which is a step in the right direction but still leaves many people in the dark. Government funding for journalism, similar to public broadcasting, is another potential solution. If journalism is as essential as everyone claims, treating it like a public good makes sense. Instead of relying on corporate greed, we should be finding ways to ensure journalism remains accessible without shutting people out.
At the end of the day, news is power and no one should have to pay just to stay informed. If independent papers need a paywall to survive, fine, but major publications have no excuse. They can afford to make essential journalism free—and it's time they start doing it.